Offenses don't perform the way they have for a decade because they are just one player away. This isn't about Bortles, he hasn't played well, it's about an offense that some of you are misguided enough to think will be good with a quarterback change. It won't.

Fournette and Robinson were a very good start in the right direction, but it's going to take 2 or 3 more offseasons of loading up with talent before we have a "talented" offense. Eli Manning would perform just as poorly in this current offense and Andrew Luck would probably die. We absolutely need at least two big time offensive free agents this offseason.

---

Dude we are a QB away.

---

Lol.

---

We obviously need more pieces on offense but to think the qb we currently have is playing at a high level is boarderline delusional. We have average receivers with an above average line an elite running game with an elite defense.. It’s a reason Brady can get sacked more in his entire career lose his best receiver have a bad defense and still be 4-2.

No one is expecting Blake to be an all time great but he is playing extremely poor. Brady can excel with nothing but Blake can fail with more. What makes this even more embarrassing is that teams aren’t even game planning against him. He is literally seeing 9 in the box and just can’t deliever the ball. It’s almost like now that he has a running game and he’s seeing more favorable fronts, he has shrunk to the pressure. The team is carrying the anchor number Blake

---

I don't think I've read anyone on this board in years say Blake Bortles is playing at a high level. Almost every post people make about him preface with he hasn't been good.

We have average wide receivers when Robinson and Westbrook are healthy, which they aren't. We have far from an above average line, despite what some pff metrics are saying. Because we don't have a good line, we don't have an elite running game. We have an elite running back, to be sure, but you're nuts of you think Kareem Hunt would be averaging 6 yards per carry in Jacksonville.

Tom Brady is still playing well because he has 5th string wide receivers and tight ends that are better than our starters. Oh, and he's the greatest of all time, which I don't think even spacecoast believes Bortles approaches.

We aren't seeing 9 in the box with 3 wide receiver sets. Seeing 9 in the box doesn't matter if you only have one wide receiver going out on routes.

---

I find it funny when some people on twitter say this isn't a loaded QB draft class because they're not perfect prospects. There are at least half a dozen guys I'd be happy if we drafted in the first 2 rounds. Then there are some I'd be happy if we took a flyer on after that. It's a good time to need a QB if there ever were one

---

They played 4-4-3 when we were in base offense and went to a 3-4 base when we went to 3 wideout sets lol. I saw this watching the game so that 1 wide reciever running a route statement is completely false.

---

They played 4-4-3 when we were in base offense and went to a 3-4 base when we went to 3 wideout sets lol. I saw this watching the game so that 1 wide reciever running a route statement is completely false.

What do you call this in these pictures then?

https://twitter.com/NFL_Journal/status/9...88/photo/1

There's clearly only 1 WR on the field in 2 of those pictures and 2 WRs on the field in the other one..

---

Offenses don't perform the way they have for a decade because they are just one player away.  This isn't about Bortles, he hasn't played well, it's about an offense that some of you are misguided enough to think will be good with a quarterback change.  It won't.

Fournette and Robinson were a very good start in the right direction, but it's going to take 2 or 3 more offseasons of loading up with talent before we have a "talented" offense.  Eli Manning would perform just as poorly in this current offense and Andrew Luck would probably die.  We absolutely need at least two big time offensive free agents this offseason.

And those free agents need to be along the line. Spend money on the big uglies.

---

They played 4-4-3 when we were in base offense and went to a 3-4 base when we went to 3 wideout sets lol. I saw this watching the game so that 1 wide reciever running a route statement is completely false.

What do you call this in these pictures then?

https://twitter.com/NFL_Journal/status/9...88/photo/1

There's clearly only 1 WR on the field in 2 of those pictures and 2 WRs on the field in the other one..

Can you generate the pictures for every play or we just gonna roll with these 3 pictures?  I know what I saw and Boselli even talked about this on the radio show.

Looking as these photos, they remained in the 4-4-3 set when we had 2 wideouts. 2 wideouts is base personnel. Can you generate what it looked like in our 3 wideout sets? So far this kind of proving my point.

---

Can you generate the pictures for every play or we just gonna roll with these 3 pictures?  I know what I saw and Boselli even talked about this on the radio show.

Looking as these photos, they remained in the 4-4-3 set when we had 2 wideouts. 2 wideouts is base personnel. Can you generate what it looked like in our 3 wideout sets? So far this kind of proving my point.

Even if they stayed in a 3-4 when we went 3 WR and covered Cole or whoever with a LB (which I haven't seen proof of yet btw), that still draws the LB out of the box to cover the WR and thus unstacks the box.

That said, unfortunately when we do 3 WR sets we still motion the WR into an offset backfield position to block too often which essentially does the same thing. I am strictly talking going 3 wide to help open up the run.

---

Can you generate the pictures for every play or we just gonna roll with these 3 pictures?  I know what I saw and Boselli even talked about this on the radio show.

Looking as these photos, they remained in the 4-4-3 set when we had 2 wideouts. 2 wideouts is base personnel. Can you generate what it looked like in our 3 wideout sets? So far this kind of proving my point.

Even if they stayed in a 3-4 when we went 3 WR and covered Cole or whoever with a LB (which I haven't seen proof of yet btw), that still draws the LB out of the box to cover the WR and thus unstacks the box.

That said, unfortunately when we do 3 WR sets we still motion the WR into an offset backfield position to block too often which essentially does the same thing. I am strictly talking going 3 wide to help open up the run.

You have said this concept in like 10 threads now. You are focused on the concept I’m focused on the personnel. Who cares if the wideout is covered by the line backer when we can’t exploit it? These teams are completely selling out against the run. How many times have we seen Poz get abused by a wideout he was covering? For some reason we can’t take advantaged the same type of matchup. 

And if Boselli saying that on the Monday radio show isn’t good enough for you then I can’t prove it to you. I don’t care that much to go find screen shots. Either take Boselli’s is word for it or rewatch the game.

---

Scheming is fine but if you can’t run and throw from the same sets it doesn’t matter. Teams will re-adjust their set according e.g. 4-4-3 set. If you can throw from your base set then they will just completely remove a defender from the pass and play the run until you can show you can. That’s just basic football. You have to be able to run and throw from the same looks, primarily your base sets

---

I am just saying it doesn't matter what the personnel the defense has on the field. It can be 6 DL and 5 LB for all I care. If we put 3 WR on the field and actually spread them out there won't be 8 in the box. Defenses simply can't "sell out against the run" if we do that.

---

Yes they can lol. If you can’t complete passes they will. That’s what any good defensive coordinator would do. Until you prove you can have a schematic advantage and beat it, I’m gonna sell out against your running game and rush the hell outta you. When we have a wr on a on and can’t win we have a problem.

---

Football is about match ups. If you can’t beat your match up then you will lose. In the passing game we are losing our match ups.

---

I will be shocked if you can show me a picture that isn't short yardage where there are 3 WRs on the field and not 3 DBs + a safety at least 10 yards deep. It would be the outlier of all outliers.

---

I will be shocked if you can show me a picture that isn't short yardage where there are 3 WRs on the field and not 3 DBs + a safety at least 10 yards deep. It would be the outlier of all outliers.

I just don’t care that much honestly lol. Again Boselli mentioned this in the Monday radio show. Go listen to it or rewatch the game and find it

---

Boselli also said Luke Joeckel was a special player and throws temper tantrums if people don't 100% agree with him.

---

You are also missing the point that it is an easy offense to defend.

The Jags throw primarily out of 1 and 2 wide receiver sets outside of 3rd down. Most throwing downs we max protect and release maybe one player into only checkdown routes. The receivers run the same basic routes (Lee is the only one who has a route tree that takes him over the middle more than occasionally). The first quarter we throw disproportionately less on 1st and 2nd down and primarily in 3rd down situations. These are things that are abundantly obvious to the ley observer, let alone a defensive coordinator who is game planning. It's incredibly conservative until 3rd downs or we are down scores.

---

Again. If you cannot run and throw out of your base offense you are in trouble. What ever you think the issue is that’s up to you

---